If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

...
You mean like the over $1 billion that was used to pay for research on con-med at the NIH (conjecture-based medicine, aka,
alternative medicine) that didn't find one con-med that worked??

That's propaganda --there are plenty of alternative remedies that work.

Good evidence, please.

With all the best and brightest minds working night and day, with all the money that goes to research and they're still struggling
to find cures to treat fungus. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ntf121208.php. The problem is they are still
trying to kill the fungus and looking for a fungicide.
I can get rid of fungus with calcium, sodium and potassium cellsalts taken orally of course. Its all to do with treating deficiency
symptoms, ie alternative health.

I've worked this out from my experience with cellsalts and treatment of athletes foot fungus.
Obviously medical research is barking up the wrong tree.

What is the nutrient silica / silicon dioxide good for? How is it used in the human body?
For starters it stops underarm odour which obviously isn't natural, and isn't a sign of good health. Silica is said to be good for
hair, nails and bone growth. Apart fromt that it helps break down pathogenic accumulations in the body, and improve aterial health.
But where is the research?

Allopathic medicine hasn't even heard of the nutrient silica, letalone that it is an essential nutrient.
Obviously research is going in all the wrong directions if it doesn't look into the nutrients necessary for good health.

The reason they made the complementary medicine research unit part of the NIH was so that they could control any information more
closely.

No, the reason why the made the con-med (conjecture-based medicine or alternative medicine) unit part of NIH is so that they can
see if con-med works. It doesn't.

No, the NIH is infiltrated with pharmaceutical friendly people, same as what they did in Australia. They sacked the whole
Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee and replaced them with a new lot of people who were more amenable to giving the pharmaceutical
companies more business.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/fe...prof-f17.shtml
Australian professor warns that poor will have to pay more for drugs
17 February 2001
"Professor David Henry, who was recently dismissed from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), spoke to the World
Socialist Web Site about the implications of changes being made to committee by the Australian government. He and other former PBAC
members have been highly critical of the appointment of Pat Clear, a former drug company executive, to head the committee. The PBAC
selects drugs for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which has kept drug prices comparatively lower than other
countries."

The Government Is Lying to You about Alternative Cancer Treatments

http://www.burtongoldberg.com/page43.html
"However, the fatal mistake was placing OAM [office of alternative medicine] within the NIH. This is like asking the fox to guard
the chicken coop. How can NIH, dedicated to conventional methods, objectively oversee the investigation of alternatives? What NIH
can oversee quite skillfully is the adulteration, perversion, and ruin of a publicly-funded office that was supposed to fairly
inform the taxpayer about new and alternative treatments for disease.

"From what I've heard through the Washington grapevine, the OAM has been sanitized and made submissive by NIH, so that it is now an
obedient and unproductive bureaucracy. People who know about alternative medicine are being forced out while people who are
indifferent to it or lack any working knowledge of it are pushed to the forefront. Projects are being derailed, funds are wasted,
and public information activities are staffed by people unsympathetic to alternative medicine."

--
Carolewww.conspiracee.com
"There are known knowns - there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we don't know we don't know." -- Donald Rumsfeld

What is the nutrient silica / silicon dioxide good for? How is it used
in the human body?
For starters it stops underarm odour which obviously isn't natural, and
isn't a sign of good health.

On the contrary, underarm odor contains pheromones which convey sexual
and social information between adults. Note that children don't need
underarm deodorants -- these pheromones are produced only beginning with
puberty, and underarm hair helps spread the messages.

The frequently noted phenomenon of menstrual cycles synchronizing among
women who live closely together is mediated by pheromones in underarm
sweat.

Note also that people who live together share the bacteria that produce
some of the odors from sweat and develop a common scent which helps
identify family and outsiders. We're much less aware of these things than
people in cultures where individuals spend more time closer together and
are less obsessed with suppressing scents, but they've been important
in human social organization since our primate ancestors and before,
as they are in other mammals.

In our culture, we prefer to suppress these odors when among strangers to
avoid pheromone effects. There's also a cultural aspect that identifies
clean, odorless people who have resources and leisure to remain so as
superior to the 'unwashed masses', even though even poor people have
access to showers in developed countries these days. Those few outcasts
who don't are further despised for their odor.

What is the nutrient silica / silicon dioxide good for? How is it used
in the human body?
For starters it stops underarm odour which obviously isn't natural, and
isn't a sign of good health.

On the contrary, underarm odor contains pheromones which convey sexual
and social information between adults. Note that children don't need
underarm deodorants -- these pheromones are produced only beginning with
puberty, and underarm hair helps spread the messages.

No, you've got that wrong.
The pheromones may play a role in attracting the opposite sex, but this is beside the point.
I'm sure nobody is going to say that underarm odour is attractive to anybody, letalone the opposite sex. So there would be underarm
odour + pheromones and I don't think that getting rid of the odour which is caused by bacteria is going to interfere with sexual
attraction.

The frequently noted phenomenon of menstrual cycles synchronizing among
women who live closely together is mediated by pheromones in underarm
sweat.

I wouldn't think so. I have heard there is a phenomena where women living together to menstrate at the same time, but it would not
be dependent on underarm bacteria.
You need to rethink this theory a little more because I can tell you that underarm odour is in direct relation to silica deficiency
and silica is mostly found in vegetables. If a person eats a high meat diet they need more silica to balance it. There is nothing
nice or natural about underarm odour - it is a deficiency symptom.

If it is so nice and natural then we should all stop using underarm deodorant and just go around stinking.
There is nothing nice and natural about any body odours and they are all symptoms of deficiencies of some mineral or other.

Note also that people who live together share the bacteria that produce
some of the odors from sweat and develop a common scent which helps
identify family and outsiders. We're much less aware of these things than
people in cultures where individuals spend more time closer together and
are less obsessed with suppressing scents, but they've been important
in human social organization since our primate ancestors and before,
as they are in other mammals.

In our culture, we prefer to suppress these odors when among strangers to
avoid pheromone effects. There's also a cultural aspect that identifies
clean, odorless people who have resources and leisure to remain so as
superior to the 'unwashed masses', even though even poor people have
access to showers in developed countries these days. Those few outcasts
who don't are further despised for their odor.

I've already covered the topic and won't respond to these rationalisations.

--
Carolewww.conspiracee.com
"There are known knowns - there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns - that is to say, there are things that we know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns - there are things we don't know we don't know." -- Donald Rumsfeld

What is the nutrient silica / silicon dioxide good for? How is it used
in the human body?
For starters it stops underarm odour which obviously isn't natural, and
isn't a sign of good health.

On the contrary, underarm odor contains pheromones which convey sexual
and social information between adults. Note that children don't need
underarm deodorants -- these pheromones are produced only beginning with
puberty, and underarm hair helps spread the messages.

No, you've got that wrong.
The pheromones may play a role in attracting the opposite sex, but this is beside the point.

No, it is part of the point. Underarm odor is a normal part of how our
bodies function once we hit puberty.
I'm sure nobody is going to say that underarm odour is attractive to anybody, letalone the opposite sex. So there would be underarm
odour + pheromones and I don't think that getting rid of the odour which is caused by bacteria is going to interfere with sexual
attraction.

And you would know this how?
The frequently noted phenomenon of menstrual cycles synchronizing among
women who live closely together is mediated by pheromones in underarm
sweat.

I wouldn't think so. I have heard there is a phenomena where women living together to menstrate at the same time, but it would not
be dependent on underarm bacteria.

Yet it shows that the odors from our underarms are part of how our
bodies work.
You need to rethink this theory a little more because I can tell you that underarm odour is in direct relation to silica deficiency
and silica is mostly found in vegetables.

You can tell us that the odor in our feces is a result of heavy water
deficiency if you like, but that is not true either. If what you said
were true, then I would have no underarm odor, either, as would middle
school and high school students who don't eat meat, but we all (after
hitting puberty) have underarm odor.

The more you say that underarm odor is a silicon-defiency, the stupider
you sound.
If a person eats a high meat diet they need more silica to balance it. There is nothing
nice or natural about underarm odour - it is a deficiency symptom.

It is caused by bacteria, as you pointed out. The bacteria are fed by
the oil in the apocrine sweat glands in the armpits, around the nipples,
navel the groin and anus.
If it is so nice and natural then we should all stop using underarm deodorant and just go around stinking.
There is nothing nice and natural about any body odours and they are all symptoms of deficiencies of some mineral or other.

Having to defecate f is natural, too, but people will want to walk
around with feces in their underpants. Body odors are not symptoms of
anything, but, rather, part of our normal body function.
Note also that people who live together share the bacteria that produce
some of the odors from sweat and develop a common scent which helps
identify family and outsiders. We're much less aware of these things than
people in cultures where individuals spend more time closer together and
are less obsessed with suppressing scents, but they've been important
in human social organization since our primate ancestors and before,
as they are in other mammals.

In our culture, we prefer to suppress these odors when among strangers to
avoid pheromone effects. There's also a cultural aspect that identifies
clean, odorless people who have resources and leisure to remain so as
superior to the 'unwashed masses', even though even poor people have
access to showers in developed countries these days. Those few outcasts
who don't are further despised for their odor.

I've already covered the topic and won't respond to these rationalisations.